I’m at that point in the space-time continuum when I can trot out the gross generalisation "all my friends are getting married". I say it’s a generalisation because not everyone is getting actually married – not everyone can, for one – and it's gross because it props up the notion marriage is the ultimate expression of relationship success. In my view, nuptials are not necessary.

But it stands; many of my friends are marriage mad.

Except for the blokes, that is.

Advertisement

Why are men around my age so reluctant to tie the knot?

Several women I know – all around 30 – are beginning to question the wisdom of the wedding ultimatum. "Either you propose to me by Christmas or we're quits, pal," they say. "We've been together long enough now, it's 'I do' or die.”

They wonder what’s holding up their husbands-to-be. They’re all in long-term, apparently loving relationships. Isn't marriage the next logical step?

Variously, they decide it's not their man, but the men he hangs out with. The single lads; lads who love a night out, aren’t 'shackled' with a ball and chain, and who make fun of supine surrender under his missus's thumb. These are the boy wonders who won't ever 'grow up'.

(Note how marriage is still aligned with maturity. Is a ring really the sign of a more developed individual?)

On that idea, I recently had a conversation with a close man-friend of mine. He may be described as the definitive leader of Lost Boys. At least, he might have been, were it not for the new Wendy-lady in his life. Suddenly, the serial playmaker had found a reason to stop flying and settle down. His band of boys didn't really understand. That was hard. Could he overcome their derision and 'man-up' to marriage?

"I think my boyfriend will get over his friends and we'll get there eventually," a girlfriend, in a different-but-like situation told me recently. "But I think the longer we leave it, the harder it becomes."

This is because of two things, she thinks. One: the diminishing chances his single friends will find a lady of their own and break-apart the dude squad. Two: the increased likelihood their friends, who are already married, will divorce.

Her points are somewhat valid. Based on Australian marriage statistics, there are roughly two 'peak' periods for meeting a life partner. The median age for first marriage sits at around 30 for both men and women (or 29 for men and 27 for women), so the years preceding the big three-zero are optimal match-making time. Then there’s the so-called 'second round' stretch, when a surge of newly single divorcees hit the market. Given most marriages that end in divorce tend to do so after eight to nine years, round two begins at around 36.

What the above fails to mention, of course, is that the number of births outside marriage is rising along with the age of the mothers (interestingly their median age is around the same that for first-time brides), and the crude marriage rate is declining as de facto co-habitation rates are rising. This doesn't suggest that couples comprising a peer group are just as likely to be married as they are de facto, with or without children, but it does suggest a variety of relationship options are presented to people with increasing regularity.

So in one sense, the reasoning that men are putting off marriage because they've seen the broken or bad marriages of their formerly 'free and single' mates is flawed; they may be less inclined to propose marriage because they’ve seen their mates shacked up in circumstances less official which are just as satisfying (if not more).

But then you read articles like this, tellingly titled I was a "male spinster", and you're reminded just how locked in to this marriage ideal we really are. Yes, even blokes. Fact remains; marriage remains our chief expression of love. It is closely linked with an ever expanding scholarship on the attainment of happiness. Not only is this strong reason to bring forward marriage equality, but it's a good reminder to anyone in a relationship treading around the edges of eternal commitment to talk about it, and resolve to abide by the outcome.

Even if that outcome is: Yes to marriage, but not to you.

And, I have to say, that may just be the painful truth so many so desperate to get hitched have to face. Yes, marriage can make you happy. But a bad marriage will make you miserable. Yes, timing plays a part, but there is such a thing as right time, wrong person.

Surely the point question should be not why so many men appear so reluctant to marry, but why so many women appear to be so eager?

(At this juncture, I'd like to point out I'm not assuming all women want to get married. Kill that thought in your head dead before commenting below please. Of course all women want to get married. It is science*)

(*Please tell me you don’t need this asterisk as confirmation that I am, indeed, joking.)

Over to you. Are you married? Are you single? Are you de facto? Are you happy?

551 comments

marriage is not a prison, anyone thinking that way should stay single.me, seeing a great lady(and hot too) since early in the year, we're now at the point of discussing the boring practical arrangements of living together, no commitment issues around here.

Commenter

Victorious Painter

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 7:16AM

'marriage is not a prison,' But with some it can be. With mean wardens.'anyone thinking that way should stay single.'Or stay single until they meet the right person.

Commenter

Dave

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 9:53AM

@ VP

"we're now at the point of discussing the boring practical arrangements of living together, no commitment issues around here"

Pursuing a de facto relationship is not commitment?

Maybe you mean it's too early to talk about marriage. But, if this 'great hot lady' found pleasure in your persona, would you commit?

Or, are you the cad implied in Kate's topic.

Cheers

Commenter

Dalliance

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 11:06AM

’Pursuing a de facto relationship is not commitment?’Was with us. ‘the boring practical arrangements of living together’Not with us. She was a determined lassie. We both had a house. She decided that mine was the better because I was in it. The next day she moved in. Certainly I didn’t object. And never boring about anything at any stage. Before of after.

The marriage. The only commitment of hers was to sign the papers. Mine anything her ran out a few days later. But we’ll leave that here. I’ll get hit on for trashing women. Whereas it would be only her. A truly deserving cause.

Commenter

Dave

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 11:56AM

@Dalliance, i said "no commitment issues around here" as in no commitment issues by my lady or me, by implication i'm saying it is a commitment.the question is no longer if but when it will happen.@Dave, for us some good planning and arrangements are required for 2 reasons, there is a school age child involved and i am a rather particular person and like everything organized, known and structured, the second point is the catalyst to the boring comment.

Commenter

Victorious Painter

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 12:35PM

'anyone thinking that way should stay single.'

We are, buddy! Isn't that the point of this article?

**Disclaimer: I'm a woman, but I would rather put my own eye out with a fork than ever, ever, ever get married. It's not you - it's me ;)***

Commenter

andilee

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 12:54PM

Marriage itself is not the problem, the likelihood of subsequent divorce is.

Marriage puts men under the durisdiction of the Family Court, which is a seething cesspit of misandry.

Men will lose most of their assets, including those that they owned prior to marriage, and they will also lose most of their future income. They will also lose custody of any kids.

They will need to continue to financially support their ex-wives, who don't have any ongoing obligations to their ex-husbands. Imagine if ex-wives were expected to continue to provide sex or housework after divorce!

And pre-nuptial agreements can be ignored by the Family Court on a whim.

I'm not anti-women. Most of them are nice people, although even nice people turn nasty during a divorce. And men are totally at the mercy of their ex-wives during a divorce. Some men may be lucky enough to have an amicable relationship breakdown with an honourable woman.

But if the woman chooses to be vindictive, the man will be totally screwed.

It's much safer not to get married in the first place. And don't live with anybody for two years or more either, because you can get screwed just as badly under defacto laws.

Commenter

Greg

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 1:55PM

@Greg

Rather than advise men not to marry at all why not advise them to be considerate about who they marry, and if they're girlfriend shows signs of being vindictive (perhaps to their friends or family members during the stage of courting) then not to marry THEM.

Cheers

Commenter

Babette

Location

Brunswick

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 3:09PM

"Pursuing a de facto relationship is not commitment?"

the thing with de-facto relationships, is that they are not often actually "pursued" , as an objective.

What starts out as a dalliance, just surreptitiously becomes one.

Commenter

enno

Location

sydney

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 3:20PM

Greg, doesn't matter if you're married. Only need to be defacto for 6 months and the same legality applies.

I think the reason is severalfold and varied. Many people (possibly blokes moreso) find weddings to be an overindulgent exercise in extravagance and expense for one day in their lives. They would prefer the simple registry office knot tying. If both partners like this idea then they're often held ransome by a myriad of relatives hounding them about putting on a 'big do' so it ends up being avoided altogether.

Others remember the experience of their parents marriages breaking down and resolved to never go through that and, perhaps mistakenly, this would be achieved by never going through with the vows in the first place. Marriage gained a bit of a bad smell about it through the 80s and 90s with skyrocketing divorce rates. The generation at marriage age now are the kids that lived through that era. Perhaps the gloss didn't come off it as much for girls as it did for guys. Guys tend not to see it as quite the defining thing that girls do and so this may have lead to some turning their back on the concept.